Appeal No. 1997-0472
Application No. 08/259,152
remain soluble even in relatively low salt concentrations"
(page 4 of brief).
Appellants submit at page 2 of the brief that "[t]he
rejected claims do not stand or fall together" and that
"[e]ach claim is believed to define a separately patentable
invention." However, the ARGUMENTS section of appellants'
brief fails to advance any argument that is reasonably
specific to any particu-lar claim on appeal. Accordingly, all
the appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 26.
Appealed claims 26-30 and 32 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D'H.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we concur with the examiner that
the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view
of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner's factual
determina-tion that D'H discloses an aqueous solution of a
plasminogen activator and appellants' anionic polymer, dextran
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007